> I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public.
Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU, but because X wants EU users, they're participating in a market where they need to follow the law of the market. If you disagree with X's choice of participating in that market, you should vote with your wallet/attention.
> On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website
That might be, but the internet unfortunately doesn't work like that, they are public platforms, so the information there is treated as public information, which it is. If you make it invite-only, I understand the expectation of privacy and private conversation, but for platforms with open signup? Don't participate and share stuff you don't want to be public, it's kind of easy.
The issue is that these laws apply to sites that are accessible in the EU which is the default state of a site on the internet, and personally I would like to avoid a balkanization of the internet. I would like to see the US government protect our websites from the EU's laws. Especially when it involves a US citizen (eg. taking a US citizens data).
I see where this concern comes from. But I think people overinterpret the EU’s legislative agenda by focusing on which companies get fined. Since American firms dominate the global tech market, they naturally end up in the crosshairs more often. That can look like a racket if you disagree with the laws, especially given the size of the penalties.
I think a more mundane explanation, which I personally subscribe to, is that Europeans have different priorities than Americans. They don’t want the same trade-offs, and they’re willing to make certain business models economically unviable if they believe those models are harmful or in bad taste. US companies are disproportionately affected because they don't share those values. First amendment, etc.
From the outside, this can create the impression of "hidden motives": the stated reasons sound unconvincing, the effects fall heavily on US companies, and so people infer that the EU is targeting Americans. But really, I think we're just different. If US laws disproportionately burdened EU citizens, I’d expect Europeans to be equally upset. It's only natural. I'm sure few people in Europe would be thrilled to find out that GDPR doesn't apply to ChatGPT because they got involved in some copyright lawsuit in New York.
That said, there's always a mix of motivations. I'm personally not a fan of other EU initiatives, like the one on encryption, but I think GDPR and DSA mostly mirror what the average João wants. I'm not sure most people care that much about the geopolitics.
I don't think the EU would have issues with the site not using data from EU citizens without blocking access in any way. The issue is really the the X does want to have "costumers" from the EU and this will fall under EU jurisdiction.
> The issue is that these laws apply to sites that are accessible in the EU which is the default state of a site on the internet
It doesn't though, it applies those laws if the entity in question happen to also be slurping up a bunch of user data and selling/using it for various purpose, something which requires intent and active work to do.
If they instead didn't do those things, these laws wouldn't apply to them in the first place. Random American HN users just having a website public on the internet without perverse tracking has nothing to worry about, and does not have to care about GDPR, EU rules or much else.
The US government and its cronies use American social media as propaganda plateforms to saw disinformation and push counter factual narratives serving their interests. They have specifically targeted influencing elections in the recent past.
That's information war. We should probably ban on sight but as we are free countries, we put in place a regulatory framework and let the courts do their work.
You don't want balkanization of the internet? Tell your government to stop using it as a weapon.
"Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU"
Right... and maybe next the US won't let Europe have any IP space. It's the internet. A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from..
> A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from
So if I run a business from a country where cocaine is legal, I should be able to sell to users in the US? Are you sure you thought this through? Seems you're letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning.
So same thing happens here, except we're talking packets, and going across wires. They got caught using illegal packets across wires in the country in question, so they get fined. If you have legal presence, then that entity gets the fine.
That's not indication of presence. You can do that from across the border.
X does have presence in the EU, but it's because they have offices/employees, equipment, and accounts housed there.
The EU may say anyone who deals in the data of their citizens is subject to their jurisdiction, but enforcement on those entities without actual presence will be difficult.
> The EU may say anyone who deals in the data of their citizens is subject to their jurisdiction, but enforcement on those entities without actual presence will be difficult.
Not particularly difficult.
Like Brasil already did, and for similar reasons, the EU can go after everything Musk owns. Even with Tesla sales dropping, they're not zero. Starlink is currently available.
> Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.
This is a good example, because the US government routinely passes laws that prevent people from transacting using the dollar system (which is basically the world financial system) and this is OK, but the EU requiring companies that operate in their market to obey different laws is not OK?
I don't really get the logic here, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't believe RIPE is a US organisation or branch of the US government.
Any attempts by the US government to assert control of a foreign non-profit entity such as RIPE is only going to end in tears. I suspect would also empower those pushing to balkanise the internet should the independence of RIPE or ARIN be violated.
I'm not sure region specific intranets is a future anyone should want.
If those US companies operate in foreign countries, then yes they will be following the law in those countries or they won't be operating there. And no, the only tears flowing will be from those who don't understand how laws and borders work.
This has always been true. E.g. Google and others complying with Chinese laws, or not operating at all in places like Iran. X can simply cease operations in EU if they don't like it.
To be fair, it's a relatively new concept for many American companies, that they need to follow the laws of the locations they operate in, some companies need a bit of a push to properly understand how the world outside of the US culture bubble works.
It's actually not. US companies are very used to it and frequently comply with local laws (e.g. in China and elsewhere). What's happening here is a vocal minority is trying to push for some notion of US dominance over other countries.
The current administration has openly stated their intent to bully selected countries they don't like in various ways, but especially when it relates to their ability to push US propaganda to foreign places via companies like X.
The current US admin oviously treats it as such, but the EU is 27* nations who don't want to be vassalised* and who work together* to project collective strength on par with the US and China.
What they should do, actually, is sue the EU for harassment in the US, like 4chan and the kiwifarms did with the UK. And then the EU can start firewalling X. Firewall everything bad, age gate everything, throw up the great firewall of the EU. I need Brussels to protect my freedoms.
Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU, but because X wants EU users, they're participating in a market where they need to follow the law of the market. If you disagree with X's choice of participating in that market, you should vote with your wallet/attention.
> On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website
That might be, but the internet unfortunately doesn't work like that, they are public platforms, so the information there is treated as public information, which it is. If you make it invite-only, I understand the expectation of privacy and private conversation, but for platforms with open signup? Don't participate and share stuff you don't want to be public, it's kind of easy.